If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Darlin', then you ought to get to knowin' it. Time to school yourself a bit.

Originally Posted by iris lilies

I dont know about state finances and millionaires...

Thank you for first admitting your ignorance.

Originally Posted by iris lilies

...but I have seen tax charts that show how much of the US revenue is provided by high income earners. Do you have an idea of that? It is a large amount considering they are tiny in number.

High income earners? How high are we talking? And are we talking about income proper or other forms of income?

Originally Posted by iris lilies

Why dont you go find aome charts and present them here, and we can discuss.

Because you should do this yourself. Also: You are deeply entrenched in your own peculiar ideology to the point of it being stultifying.

Originally Posted by iris lilies

We here have been well schooled in the data that refutes “millionaires do not pat their fair share, “ schooled by a tax law professor, but I may be the only one who took the lesson to heart. You may not have been around in those days.

A tax professor's refutation on an internet forum relayed to me second-hand years and years later? Holy cow! You really changed my mind.

And this, at this point, is merely you appealing to an authority. There are plenty of other authorities that dispute you and the legendary tax professor's refutation. Google them.

Don't expect the whole population to vote even to tax millionaires for benefits most of them won't see though.

I don't.

But the PSLF program was put int effect in a bipartisan move during the Bush era. Many people, even the children of working class republicans have massive student debt. Having effected them directly, these republicans care enough now to support PSLF.

Darlin', then you ought to get to knowin' it. Time to school yourself a bit.

Thank you for first admitting your ignorance.

High income earners? How high are we talking? And are we talking about income proper or other forms of income?

Because you should do this yourself. Also: You are deeply entrenched in your own peculiar ideology to the point of it being stultifying.

A tax professor's refutation on an internet forum relayed to me second-hand years and years later? Holy cow! You really changed my mind.

And this, at this point, is merely you appealing to an authority. There are plenty of other authorities that dispute you and the legendary tax professor's refutation. Google them.

5% of U.S. citizens pay more than 50% of U.S. taxes. They pay nearly 60%. They pay a strong majority of taxes.

That is astonishing to me. It is “astonishing” because that seems a huge burdon for the upper 5%.

I cannot imagine why you, Teacher Terry, and others here are not satisfied with that revenue from The 5%, ya’ll want more more more.

i cannot imagine how discouraging it must be for The 5% Club to observe no brakes on Congressional spending and to wonder where it will all end. Not to mention it must be personally discouraging to be recipients of near constant hectoring about how that Club does not do their fair share.

I think they are doing their fair share. Fifty eight fooking percent is “fair.”

I cannot imagine why you, Teacher Terry, and others here are not satisfied with that revene from The 5%, ya’ll want more more more.

I think it boils down to a desire to force equal outcomes for all, regardless of effort or merit. The only way to prevent some from achieving higher incomes is to empower a benevolent government with the means and authority to take it away from those deemed to have too much and re-distribute it to those who feel they have too little. When a more benevolent government comes along and says 'You know, I don't think that's right' it seems to piss a lot of people off.

"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

It has nothing to do with forced equal outcomes. It has everything to do with taking care of the most vulnerable members of society such as children and the elderly. It is not letting people go hungry or be homeless. It is providing health care for all. You still have rich , middle and the poor but providing a few basic necessities is not a bad thing. Personally I do not mind paying taxes and expect to pay accordingly.

That's what everybody says, and I suspect they mean it too. But, what if I told you that since you make more than me, I want the government to confiscate at least 40% of the first, lets say $30K, of your household income and 90% of everything over that amount. Does that seem fair to you?

"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

It has nothing to do with forced equal outcomes. It has everything to do with taking care of the most vulnerable members of society such as children and the elderly. It is not letting people go hungry or be homeless. It is providing health care for all. You still have rich , middle and the poor but providing a few basic necessities is not a bad thing. Personally I do not mind paying taxes and expect to pay accordingly.

+1

It sounds like Alan is suggesting that CEOs making $1B are more meritorious than the struggling single mother who is working two jobs to try to pay for her kid's education. Or someone like me, earning a good living because I lucked into my job is more meritorious than Terry, or CL, or ZG who help children and families every day. All I do is push drugs. We have a funny way in this country of assigning value to people's roles. I guess the CEO of Enron was meritorious, but the Teacher of the Year should be happy with their $50k.

"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Townwww.silententry.wordpress.com

It sounds like Alan is suggesting that CEOs making $1B are more meritorious than the struggling single mother who is working two jobs to try to pay for her kid's education. Or someone like me, earning a good living because I lucked into my job is more meritorious than Terry, or CL, or ZG who help children and families every day. All I do is push drugs. We have a funny way in this country of assigning value to their roles. I guess the CEO of Enron was meritorious, but the Teacher of the Year should be happy with their $50k.

To frame the argument here, it is about gubmnt mandated taxation. I doubt Alan is suggesting what you asvribebto him.

If you wish society to change what it values and rewards thru salaries, that is fine, but that is not THIS discussion.

By the by, I know someone in the .01%, just saw him yesterday. I know how much he makes because he was just named CFO in a publicly traded company. His compensation is well over $1million a year as stated in our city newspaper. He is a very nice guy, and very generous. back when D.h worked handyman jobs for him, he gave us extravagant restaurant coupons as gifts. One year we received two, and it was a little embarrassing to me and I almost called him to see if there was a mistake, did he really intend to give us two? Haha.

If you wish society to change what it values and rewards thru salaries, that is fine, but that is not THIS discussion.

I know someone in the .01%, just saw him yesterday. I know how much he makes because he was just bamed CFOin a publicly traded comoany. His compensation is well over $1million a year. He is a very nuce guy, and very generous.

Well, to that point, there are members of the 1% Club that agree that they pay too much. And I'm not questioning your friend's generosity or personality--I'm questioning a system that works like a Monopoly game. Over time, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and eventually society is whacked. Game over. Look at the French and Russian Revolutions--and ours, to that point.

And there's Chuck Collins who wrote Born on Third Base. And there's the economist Thomas Piketty, who is not a member of the 1%, but whose analysis of wealth inequality posits that extreme inequality is simply bad for everyone.

"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Townwww.silententry.wordpress.com

It sounds like Alan is suggesting that CEOs making $1B are more meritorious than the struggling single mother who is working two jobs to try to pay for her kid's education. Or someone like me, earning a good living because I lucked into my job is more meritorious than Terry, or CL, or ZG who help children and families every day. All I do is push drugs. We have a funny way in this country of assigning value to people's roles. I guess the CEO of Enron was meritorious, but the Teacher of the Year should be happy with their $50k.

I doubt that the top 5% of earners in this country make $1B or more, but it sound good for the sake of argument I guess. And I don't think I'm assigning value to people's roles, I've said before that I'm a free market kinda guy and realize that values are assigned to an expected return rather than to a role. A person providing a large return is more valuable in their role than a person with a lower return. We shouldn't confuse economics with social parity.

You say you push drugs as if that's a bad thing. I make drugs and I think that's a good thing, our drugs provide the most effective means of controlling addiction our current science can provide so I'll reject your collective disapproval and be proud of my role in a singular benefit to society. I suppose you could tax us out of existence and never even realize what you'd lost, and that would be a shame.

"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein